Standing Committee D

Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Extradition Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed, 
That the Standing Committee recommends that the programme order of 9th December 2002 in relation to the Extradition Bill be amended as follows:-
In paragraph 4 of the order, for ''one hour'' there is substituted ''two hours''.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Nick Hawkins: As members of the Programming Sub-Committee know, we have agreed to extend the protected time for Third Reading of the Bill from one hour to two hours. I want to place on the record the reasons for that extension. I am delighted that the Government agree with it. We did not have the benefit of the presence of any Liberal Democrat on the Programming Sub-Committee, but took it that their absence connoted consent for what the Government and the official Opposition agreed.
 We wanted to extend the time because both the Government and the Opposition feel that this is a slightly unusual Bill. It involves not a huge number, but a certain number of major issues of principle. The fact that the Committee spent four out of nine sittings debating part 1 on those major issues and one whole sitting debating one clause stand part and two new clauses shows where the burden falls. It is not one of those long Bills with a huge number of issues of principle, and Report takes much longer than Third Reading. Some hon. Members on both sides may not have had a chance to catch the Speakers eye on Second Reading, and may want to contribute on the issues of principle and not just on each individual issue on Report. The Government and the Opposition thought that it would be fair to provide an opportunity for more Third Reading speeches of a general nature. 
 There is a risk that if there are several statements on urgent matters before the House that afternoon, protecting two hours rather than one hour might result in Report being truncated, but the Government have kindly said that they will use their best endeavours to avoid that, and we recognise that that is all they can say to try to protect Report stage so that we can have a substantive debate on the major issues and still have a bit longer for Third Reading. That is the view of Conservative Members, it is clear that the Liberal Democrats do not disagree, or they would have made their point in the Programming Sub-Committee, and the Government are happy with it. That is why we thought it better to protect a little longer, and I have the approval of my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench for saying that.

John Burnett: I did not know that there was a meeting at 2.15 this afternoon, and I regret to say that I was not present for it. However, I am entirely happy that instead of
 one hour we should have two hours for Third Reading, not least because a number of hon. Members may want to contribute. Some serious issues of principle need to be discussed, and the more time, the merrier, if that is appropriate.

Edward O'Hara: I should point out that the hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Bob Ainsworth: I was going to encourage the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) to ring his office more often, but I then realised that the problem was not the Liberal Democrats' internal communication. The hon. Gentleman was not invited to the meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee because he is not a member of it. However, his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is a member. We kept the proceedings going artificially to try to facilitate the arrival of a Liberal Democrat Member. We have no desire to make decisions behind their backs. We shall use our best endeavours to avoid statements, although we cannot legislate for what might arise on the day, and the Opposition accept that. We may want to curtail the debate, but in the absence of any argument to the contrary, the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) appear to be eminently reasonable. We thought that we should accept that reasonable request.

Nick Hawkins: This may not have been a matter for the Programming Sub-Committee, but I should mention that there has sometimes been a short gap between the end of the Committee stage and the Report stage to suit the Government business managers. I hope that the Minister can reassure us, after receiving any necessary advice from his hon. Friend the Government Whip, that we will not suddenly see the Bill going to Report within a week. There is usually a gap of at least a week, and we ask that that is observed, or preferably increased, to enable us to consult outside organisations before Report.

Bob Ainsworth: I cannot comment. It is a matter for the usual channels to decide, which I am sure they will. We will be as reasonable as we can, notwithstanding other business pressures that the Government place on us.

Alistair Carmichael: I should, perhaps, make it clear that I was a member of the Programming Sub-Committee and was aware of the change. I expressed certain views this morning, and I am grateful for the offers of assistance. Unfortunately, I had business outwith the House at lunchtime, and was unable to get back in time. I blame the Mayor of London and the current traffic-management fiasco in Trafalgar square. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon already made the position clear: it is a matter of supreme indifference to us.
 Question put and agreed to.

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. When your co-Chairman, Miss Begg, was in the Chair before lunch, I asked on a point of order whether we should press new clauses 7 and 8 to a
 Division then or later as we were running up against the Adjournment. The Clerk advised us that there would be a Division at the end of the sitting, which I accept. However, I want to make it clear that we had had a long debate all morning on clause stand part and new clauses 6, 7 and 8, and we voted against clause 193, because we believe that it should have with it the provisions under our new clauses, not because we disagree with its basis.
 I do not want any Minister suddenly to say on Report or on Third Reading that the Conservatives were trying to drive a coach and horses through the Bill and were voting against the national security exemption. I believe that our intentions have been clear during the debates, but it is important to state them for the record. The pressure of time meant that we had to take an instant decision about voting on the clause, and it was logical to vote against it and to try to argue in favour of our new clauses.

Edward O'Hara: The point has been made and is on the record.Clause 194 Reasonable force

Clause 194 - Reasonable force

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Angela Watkinson: The clause is short, but contains the innocent-looking word ''reasonable''. I know that the word ''reasonable'' has a legal meaning, and doubtless one of the many of lawyers in the Room will tell me exactly what that is. To me as a layman, it is open to interpretation. Bearing in mind the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is important that the word is clarified for the benefit of the police and others who may exercise the powers under the Bill, and for the people who are being extradited.
 I shall refer to a briefing paper from the Metropolitan police. One of the key areas of concern was the need for a code of practice in the exercise of their powers. It said: 
''These powers are welcomed by the MPS and we acknowledge the considerable value added to the fight against international crime which these powers permit. In the main these are powers with which police officers are familiar and their existing domestic equivalents are well tested within domestic legislation. We note the intention to write a Code of Practice for these extradition powers and we would ask to be involved in that process in order that our experiences to date with similar legislation can be considered.''
 I add my support to the request that the police should be consulted on the formation of a code of practice, to ensure that no loopholes remain.

Nick Hawkins: I agree entirely with the point made by my hon. Friend. Had she not done so, I was planning to refer to the Metropolitan police's helpful brief, but I do not need to repeat what she said merely to endorse it. I look forward to reassuring words from the Minister about codes of practice.
 All of us who are lawyers are well aware of discussions about apparently innocent words in short clauses mentioning such issues as ''reasonable force''. 
 The definition of what is reasonable is often left for the decision of a court, and thus is a matter of interpretation. I was therefore surprised to see that the clause was as short as it is. Will the Minister tell us whether a longer draft, with more explanation of the clause, was contemplated at any stage? I hope that he will also shed some light on the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson).

Bob Ainsworth: Opposition Members will recall that we discussed this matter last week under part 4 of the Bill. I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was present for the discussion, as I know that she has had other Committee duties to juggle during the passage of the Bill.
 In the past, it was thought that the police could carry out their functions in the extradition system under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, or by using their common law powers. However, the Rottman case cast doubt on that. In that case it was initially held that the search and seizure powers in PACE applied only to domestic offences and that, since the advent of PACE, the police could no longer rely on their common law powers in that area. Part 4 of the Bill was drafted to ensure that the police have powers in extradition cases that are modelled on those in PACE. It will therefore be clear to everyone concerned that they can use powers in extradition cases that are as near to the PACE powers as is appropriate. 
 The PACE code of practice C allows for reasonable force to be used if necessary to secure compliance with a reasonable instruction and to prevent escape, injury, damage to property or the destruction of evidence. The Bill incorporates the same ability to use reasonable force as is contained in the PACE codes. ''Reasonable force'' is a well known and understood phrase. 
 We will be issuing a code of practice and we will consult the police on that, as we consult them on the need to update the PACE codes from time to time. When we draft that code, the ramifications of the mirror powers in the Extradition Bill will also need to be consulted on, if any changes are necessary. The police will be an important part of the decision as to whether such updates or changes are required.

Nick Hawkins: That seems to be entirely satisfactory. It is what I expected the Minister to say. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster and I agree that that assistance from the Minister was helpful. We will not seek to pursue the matter further.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 194 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 195 to 198 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 199 - Form of documents

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I want to raise briefly an important point about clause 199. The shortest clauses often hide a multitude of potential sins, and I have a nasty suspicion that that is true of this clause, which will give the Secretary of State an extraordinarily wide and unfettered power. It states:
''The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the form of any document required for the purposes of this Act.''
 The Minister may say that such a phrase is common in legislation, but at least some of the documents required should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Will the Minister say, first, whether those regulations will always be debated in the House? If the answer is yes, there will be some parliamentary scrutiny, but if the clause gives the Secretary of State a general regulation-making power, which means that a document can be set up in the form that he or his officials want, without it coming before Parliament, it is a matter of concern. 
 We have already discussed the fact that the form of the European arrest warrant—a six-page example was sent to me—does not fit with the traditions of UK law. Will this little clause give the Secretary of State the power to rewrite a document because the authorities in Brussels or Strasbourg decided that they wanted a different kind of warrant, for example? If so, he could decide to sign up to it in the same way as the Government signed up to the original framework decision, without any consideration by Parliament of the form of the document. That worries me. My hon. Friends the Members for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and for Upminster and many others share my concern about the Secretary of State having carte blanche, in the most literal use of that phrase—he will be given a white card. 
 A future Secretary of State could decide to use a form that was very different from anything in current law on extradition. A responsible Government would not behave in a way that was alien to the traditions of UK law, but I am always worried about open-ended, widely worded clauses, because Governments cannot bind their successors. If a future Government wanted to make some radical changes to extradition law, they could say, ''All we are doing is using the power given to the Secretary of State by the Extradition Act 2003''. 
 The Minister can reassure us by telling the Committee that any regulations made under the clause will have full parliamentary scrutiny and will be subject to the affirmative procedure, not go through on the nod.

Bob Ainsworth: The clause is necessary. It enables the Secretary of State to devise and issue standard documents such as certificates and part 3 warrants. Without the clause, it would be unclear to what sort of standard documents the Bill refers.
 The Secretary of State will make the regulations by statutory instrument, which will be subject to the negative procedure. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath wants every dot and comma to be scrutinised in every instance and every statutory instrument to be subject to an affirmative resolution but the clause refers to the form required for standard 
 documentation. The negative procedure is used for such measures, and the relevant precedents lead one to believe that it is appropriate. 
 Clause 199 deals specifically with forms and documents and is purely administrative. No great questions of principle are involved, but we must be able to specify what forms are needed and there should be some parliamentary accountability for the content of those forms. As I said, it is our intention that the negative procedure should be used for the approval of the orders, which is an appropriate level of scrutiny.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has come part of the way towards us by acknowledging that there will be parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that every regulation must go through the affirmative procedure, but any new forms relating to something as major and crucial to the liberty of the subject as extradition should be subject to it.
 Having put the point on record, I will not divide the Committee on the clause. The Minister has reassured me to a certain extent, although I hope that he will at least consider what I have said. He has already undertaken to consider whether other provisions in the Bill should be subject to affirmative resolution, and I hope that he will add the clause to his list. He may find that in another place the Government will be looking for matters on which they can offer reassurance to show that they have listened to some of our arguments. Clause 199 could be one such matter. 
 I do not think that it will be a huge inconvenience, but we are talking about changing forms in relation to a matter of principle as important as extradition. We all know that cases often turn on the documentation, so it is important. I am sure that the Minister, like me, will have seen plenty of cases involving extradition to the Republic of Ireland. When I practised at the Bar, I used to work on such cases, which involved special branch officers sitting at the back of the court. Many cases fell apart because Governments of both parties—I am not making a party political point—failed to provide the Irish courts with proper documentation. As the Minister acknowledges, documentation is important in extradition, so its form is crucial. 
 I am not making a silly point. There are good reasons why any change in the forms under a general order-making power for the Secretary of State should be considered in Parliament. With the best will in the world and however carefully Home Office officials try to draft something, they might miss a certain point, so the forms should come before Parliament for proper scrutiny. Parliament has many Members of both parties who have served as Northern Ireland Ministers, and they might be able to suggest changes based on what went wrong before. That is just one example. Cases of extradition to other countries will undoubtedly have gone wrong under pre-existing law because of documentation problems. 
 The point should be considered. I will not divide the Committee, but I hope that the Government will consider it seriously instead of just batting away our objections. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 199 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 200 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule agreed to.

Clause 201 - Commencement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: We are coming towards the end of the Committee, and we now have the question of commencement. On this occasion, I am indebted to the important organisation Liberty for suggesting an amendment. I tabled an amendment about transitional provisions whose inclusion Liberty proposed in place of clause 201, but I realised that that amendment could not be selected because we wanted to delete the clause and replace it with another. The debate technically has to be on clause stand part.
 For the benefit of the Committee and the Minister, in case he did not look at our original amendment, we wanted to say that all the provisions of the Bill up to and including clause 200 would apply only to conduct committed after Royal Assent. We are now into our regular argument about whether legislation should have retrospective effect. I am sure that the Minister will immediately stand up and say that if we do this, there is a great danger that people will slip out of criminal proceedings that they should rightly face. I understand those concerns, but existing legislation will cover any offences committed before the Bill receives Royal Assent. 
 I quote what Liberty said to us, and, no doubt, to the Liberal Democrats and others: 
''We urge the Government to take advantage of the transitional provisions allowed for in Article 32 of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) Framework Decision by making a statement to the effect that it will continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before the specified date''—
 Liberty chose the date of the framework decision, 7 August 2002; I suggested instead going on to the date of Royal Assent to the Bill— 
''in accordance with the extradition system applicable before January 2004. There is nothing in the Bill that indicates that it will not be retrospective and we would urge the government to incorporate such a statement in the Bill''.
 I have not had the opportunity or resources to check, but Liberty understands that the Governments of France, Italy and Austria have already made similar statements of non-retrospectivity, if I may put it that way. I do not know whether the Minister and his civil servants can confirm or deny that, but I am prepared to take Liberty's word for it because in my experience it always checks matters carefully. 
 Liberty's briefing continues: 
''Retrospective application of the Bill may lead to situations where requests are received which apply to people who may have been involved in past conduct''
 which will not be properly covered by the Bill. All members of the Committee are familiar with the argument about retrospectivity. I have placed the issue 
 firmly before the Committee. Liberty does not necessarily have the perfect wording, but it has suggested a substitution. I do not suggest that I have the perfect wording, but I want to raise the issue because those in another place who are experts on extradition law might want to discuss it in more detail than we have time for this afternoon.

Edward O'Hara: In view of what the hon. Gentleman said about the relationship between clause 201 and new clause 3, I shall now group them together. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to come back on that.

Nick Hawkins: I would be happy to do that. The clauses cover the same point, as your Clerk has realised Mr. O'Hara, so if we can debate them together that would be great.

Bob Ainsworth: That is helpful because the points made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will inevitably be raised on the debate on new clause 3. The matter raised by new clause 3 is of no small importance. I shall try to convince the Committee and the hon. Gentleman that it is not necessary to amend the Bill in this way. If he is going to go all the way in terms of retrospective application of the Bill to alleged criminal behaviour, I am not sure that he would want to make this amendment if he thought about it in detail.
 New clause 3 would provide that the new powers under the Bill would apply only to conduct that takes place after Royal Assent. That might appear to make sense, but if it is followed through, the conclusion is far from logical. Let us say that a person commits a murder shortly before Royal Assent. Because the conduct occurred before the 2003 Act came into force, an extradition request for the offence could be made only under the former provisions. That might not be too bad if the request comes within a few months, but what if it comes five years from now, because the murder is only discovered five years from now? What about accusations of paedophilia, which by their nature are often made some years after the acts themselves? 
 If the new clause were accepted, the existing legislation would need to remain on the statute book in parallel with the new regime as long as it might be possible to extradite a person for an offence committed before Royal Assent. That could mean that we had two systems running in parallel for many years.

Nick Hawkins: I take the Minister's point. As I hoped, he is taking this matter seriously. However, I made it clear that I am not saying that we or Liberty have necessarily got the provision exactly right. Does the Minister understand that we are trying to avoid improper restrospectivity? It would be helpful if he at least kept the matter under review to see whether there is a way to address Liberty's concern while not having two systems running in parallel as he described. I understand the Minister's point about paedophiles and murders that are discovered many years after the event. We do not want two systems running in parallel, but equally we do not want improper and unnecessary
 retrospectivity. Will he at least undertake to continue considering the issue?

Bob Ainsworth: Unreasonable lapses of time can be prayed in aid against extradition requests. I should have thought that the point that most concerns Liberty, which the hon. Gentleman has raised on its behalf, would have to be dealt with in that context. We have had lengthy discussions in Committee about how long certain extradition cases can be protracted by determined individuals with legal resources. It escapes me to understand how we could put something in the Bill that defined an inappropriate degree of retrospectivity but that did not allow people to fall through the net or place an obligation on us to keep both pieces of legislation running in tandem for many years.
 The hon. Gentleman makes a genuine point about people seeking many years after the event to use a piece of legislation that was not in place at the time, and about the ability to extradite people years after a crime was committed. Such a person would be able to raise that point with a district judge in respect of part 1. Other ways that are appropriate in part 2 would be covered by the time bar for an unreasonable passage of time.

Nick Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says and, as I said, I hope that he will continue to consider the matter. Those in another place who have even greater experience of the way in which the law operates and issues of retrospectivity may want to debate it. I do not wish to push the matter at this stage. We have placed it on the record, and those who look at our proceedings will see what I have said and the Minister's response. I suspect that this will once again be a live issue in another place.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 201 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 202 - Existing legislation on extradition

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Burnett: I am proud to rise to debate this clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and I find it offensive in the extreme—

Alistair Carmichael: Obnoxious.

John Burnett: I am grateful to my colleague. This is a classic Henry VIII clause, conferring power on the Executive to make fundamental amendments to primary legislation through secondary legislation. We have been fortunate to have the Select Committee's comments on the Extradition Bill. I refer to page 29 of its excellent report and we have all noted its conclusion. With the backing of my party, which responded to requests to express its views on the Bill, I shall attempt to précis the report. It states:
''The Bill provides no indication of what provisions of these Acts''—
 the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and the Extradition Act 1989— 
''the Government intends should be amended or repealed. Clause 205 provides that any Order in Council made under clause 165 would be subject to the negative resolution procedure, whereby it may be annulled in pursuance of a resolution of either House.''
 It continues: 
''The Home Office has told us that it considers Clause 202 needs to be drafted in its present form because the Government intends that the Bill will apply to all extradition requests received after the Bill comes into force. Consequently, it intends to repeal both the 1965 and 1989 Acts in their entirety. However, these Acts cannot be repealed until all cases which are in the system at such time as the Bill comes into force have been finally disposed of.''
 The Home Affairs Committee makes it quite clear that it considers the clause to constitutionally inappropriate. As I said at the outset, it is a classic Henry VIII clause and it is objectionable because we have no idea, beyond a bland assertion from the Home Office, what parts of the Acts will be repealed, or what the principles or guidelines for appeals will be. 
 Fortuitously, on 14 January 2003, at the behest of the noble Lord Dahrendorf, a debate on the third report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee took place in another place. The debate centred on the key constitutional question of the limits of Executive power, and Parliament's ability—and its duty—to prevent the unchecked expansion of those limits. The conclusion was that, although Henry VIII powers could occasionally be justified through the negative procedure, the fundamental principle was that there 
''should always be a presumption in favour of the affirmative procedure. That means that whenever it is not adopted reasons must be given in the Explanatory Notes accompanying Bills why this should be so.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. 169.]
 We shall press for a Division on these obnoxious, objectionable and unparliamentary provisions. I hope that Labour Members will support our endeavours to ensure that Parliament regains its authority and the principle of parliamentary democracy is retained. We have discussed this before in Committee. This is a slipshod little clause that has no place in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has expressed his views in such strong terms, as it has saved me the trouble of doing so. I will not bore the Committee by repeating what he said, but I agree with every word. It is rare for me to agree with every word uttered by a Liberal Democrat, but it is more likely to happen with the two Liberal Democrats on this Committee. The Minister has sought to drive a wedge between them based on their lack of communication. He also described the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon as being the Eurosceptic wing of the Liberal Democrat party, but he is also on its constitutional wing, as is his hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. They believe in the historic traditions of Parliament, and long may they continue to do so; even so, I wish that their views were more widely shared by their parliamentary colleagues, who so often vote with Labour to undermine our constitutional traditions.
 The Conservatives, too, object to Henry VIII clauses. Since he became shadow Home Secretary, and probably for many years before that, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) 
 has voted against every Henry VIII provision that the Government have sought to slip in. My hon. Friends and I will certainly support the Liberal Democrats in voting against the clause for all the reasons that the Select Committee set out. I have no doubt that there will be a huge amount of opposition, including from Labour peers, when the provision comes before another place. Often the only way we have managed to preserve our constitutional traditions recently has been when Labour peers have voted with Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers. Long may that continue, as well.

Alistair Carmichael: I share the pride expressed my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that it is unusual for him to agree with every word uttered by my hon. Friend. I understand where he is coming from. I, too, find myself in that happy position. There is an important constitutional point here which my hon. Friend, in his typically understated way, brings to the attention of the Committee. The issue is well explored by the Home Affairs Committee report on the Bill. The Minister may not be aware that that is a Labour-dominated Committee—[Laughter.]
 The extent of the discretion that the clause gives the Government is quite unnecessary. Unless there is some compelling reason why the provisions could not be achieved by some other way, perhaps by specification of sections in a schedule, which might be brought into force by order at a later date, I can see no reason why we should be asked to give the Executive a power of this sort.

Nick Hawkins: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that we are seeing more and more of these Henry VIII clauses in more and more Bills? If the Government simply adopt a Henry VIII clause mentality on every Bill—

Edward O'Hara: Order. We are considering the Extradition Bill.

Alistair Carmichael: I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman expresses. Of course, one can refer only to the clause as it is drafted, but it is legitimate that we all express some disappointment in the Minister. I am not angry with him, simply a little sad and disappointed that he should seek to usurp the proper functions of Parliament.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman says that he is disappointed in the Minister, but we should bear it in mind that it is not necessarily this Minister's fault. He may have been immortalised on celluloid as the aggressive Whip in ''The Project'', with fellow former Labour Whips accusing him of being a bully, but I cannot believe that of him. I suspect that he is an old softy at heart, and that it is those behind him—the forces of darkness, about whom we have read so much—who are responsible.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The clause has nothing to do with whether the Minister is soft or hard.

Alistair Carmichael: I can add nothing that would be in order. I conclude my remarks.

Bob Ainsworth: The attempts of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to heal the rift that has opened up in his party are fairly transparent. He tries his best to row in behind his hon. Friend, but instead of using the scolding language of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon, his remarks are so reasonable that he completely undermines what he is trying to do.

John Burnett: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: No. I would be out of order if I were to do so, and the hon. Gentleman would be out of order regardless of what he said. We should get on with discussing the substance of the debate, although I know that that is a dreadful imposition and undermining of parliamentary democracy.
 The clause allows the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 and the Extradition Act 1989 to be amended or repealed by an Order in Council, as we will need to get rid of our existing legislation once the new arrangements for dealing with extradition requests are in place. I realise that there has been criticism of our taking powers to repeal the existing legislation by order rather than repealing them under the Bill. I acknowledge that the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee—and initially the Joint Committee on Human Rights—expressed concerns about the matter, and that the Home Affairs Committee report suggested that the clause should be deleted and that the Bill should include a provision to repeal the Acts. 
 I take the opportunity to explain why we drafted the clause in this way. The provisions and procedures will replace the existing legislation—

Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Ainsworth: I want to put this on the record so that the hon. Gentleman will see what draconian measures I am introducing, and what I am not introducing! We clearly intend to repeal the 1989 and 1965 Acts—

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon did not refer to the final paragraph of the Select Committee's report, which relates to warrants to and from the Republic of Ireland. Will the Minister also deal briefly with the Select Committee's final recommendation 29, which states that
''central statistics on extraditions to and from the Republic should henceforward be maintained''?
 That is relevant to one of the Acts, and it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that that will be done. It is a small point, but one that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon did not mention.

Bob Ainsworth: Yes, it would be helpful, and we intend positively to respond to that point, just to prove that we do not ignore everything that Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committees recommend, if for no other reason.
 The important substantive issue was misunderstood in the scolding that I received from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. He will obviously vote 
 against the clause if I do not manage to satisfy him. When the Bill receives Royal Assent and is enacted, there will still be a number of outstanding extradition cases that will be governed by the 1989 Act. It will therefore be necessary to keep the new and the current systems operating in tandem until every extradition request that has been started under the existing procedures or the backing of warrants legislation has reached its completion. Once that has happened, the 1989 and the 1965 Acts will be repealed in their entirety. I am sure that hon. Members will understand that it is not possible to predict when will then happen. It therefore seems reasonable to repeal those Acts by Order in Council. 
 As I have explained, the Joint Committee on Human Rights questioned us about the matter, and considered our explanation. I heard the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland and for Lewes (Norman Baker) talk extensively about the weight that they give to the Joint Committee, whereas the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Torridge and West Devon do not seem to be that bothered about human rights.

John Burnett: The Minister cannot get away with that. Does he not recall that, in one of the first amendments that we discussed, I sought to incorporate in the definitions of any country to be classified as category 1 that such a country should be, among other things, a signatory to the European convention on human rights?

Bob Ainsworth: I am glad to have lured the hon. Gentleman out on that. I hope that his commitment to human rights is complete and absolute and that his support for the Joint Committee is as substantial as that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
 We were questioned at length by the Joint Committee, and that Committee's conclusion is contained in the ''Scrutiny of Bills: Progress Report'', which was published on 20 December. I quote from paragraph 60 on page 21 of that report: 
''On the relationship between the Bill and the Extradition Act 1989, we were told that the 1989 Act would be repealed in its entirety, together with the Backing of Warrants Act 1965. However, this cannot be done until the last cases to be brought under the Act have been finally disposed of. The power to repeal by Order will be used to repeal the earlier legislation when that time comes. In our view''—
 that is the view of the Joint Committee, on which I believe that the Liberal Democrats are represented, in which they play a full part, and in which the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon has great confidence— 
''this is a satisfactory explanation of the power.''
 I would hope that at least some weight would be given to the considered view of the Joint Committee by the hon. Members who are members of the Home Affairs Committee—a Labour-dominated Select Committee—and that this Committee will also give some weight to those views. I therefore hope also that any further scolding that I receive from the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon will be toned down. 
 If there is another approach that does not present any problems, being the reasonable man that I am—not the one that is portrayed in a disgraceful television 
 programme—I will consider it. I do not think that Opposition Members want those who have been in the queue for extradition for a long time to be able to escape justice. We need the powers to run in tandem and to continue for an indefinable period until all the cases have been disposed of. Having considered the matter, it seems to me, and to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that what we propose is a sensible way forward; the measures will removed in their entirety at the appropriate time. I hope that that will soften the assault from Opposition Members, and that they will withdraw their scandalous remarks and support the proposal, unless they can offer an alternative, to which I shall give due consideration.

Alistair Carmichael: It is proper that the Joint Committee on Human Rights should have regard to the provision from a human rights perspective, but the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon and others is more far-reaching than that. It is a fundamental constitutional principle that primary legislation should not be amended by secondary legislation other than in the most exceptional circumstances. That goes beyond human rights considerations, and it would fall only narrowly within the ambit of debate in the Joint Committee. The proposal is not the trump card that the Minister seems to think it is.
 It is possible for the Bill to include a proposal to repeal the relevant measures. I am no draftsman, but I believe that it could be done by the construction of a schedule, which could be brought into force at a later date by a separate commencement order.

Bob Ainsworth: I was not using the Joint Committee on Human Rights as the only trump card; I was using it to damp down Liberal Democrats' outrage about the powers. If the Joint Committee shared that outrage, it would have said so clearly in its report on 20 December. I am happy to consider hon. Members' suggestions if they do not create major problems or introduce loopholes that would prevent our taking the appropriate action against those who are currently in the system. It should be acknowledged that we are discussing exceptional circumstances that might justify withdrawing primary legislation by secondary legislation. However, I do not want to impose on Parliament a ludicrous procedure that does not make sense, nor do I want to provide loopholes that enable people to escape due process and justice. If another way cannot be found, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that these are exactly the exceptional circumstances that justify primary legislation being withdrawn by secondary legislation.
 The hon. Gentleman appears to be happy to do that if we can satisfy him that there is not another way. Everyone knows what principle I am talking about, and if the great minds in the other place or anywhere else can come up with a proposal I will be happy to consider it. I do not have a closed mind on the matter. I hope that we can proceed, without allegations of unconstitutional practice, to try to find a sensible way to bring the old arrangements to a conclusion and the new ones into being.

John Burnett: I was interested to hear the Minister's comments. I detected a flower of reason and embryonic capitulation, and I am glad to hear that he will consider the matter further. Amendments will undoubtedly be tabled on Report and in the other place. However, it has always been my view that one should not negotiate from a position of weakness. I believe that the Minister's card should be marked, and he should be given a yellow card.
 As my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned, it is a matter of principle. That was also the view of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and the Minister should heed the wise words of the Members of the other place who spoke in the excellent debate on 14 January 2003. He should read the debate and take cognisance of the wise words of those learned Lords. It is not good enough. We will negotiate from a position of strength and vote against the clause. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 202 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 203 - Channel Islands and Isle of Man

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: The point that I wanted to raise has been expanded by a briefing that I received during our lunch break. The Minister will remember that when we served on the Proceeds of Crime Bill for many months last year, he and the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) used to poke fun at the then shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), and me for the number of lunchtime and dinner briefings that we received. Those briefings were helpful and shed light on the debate, and today's briefing was the same.
 The Minister knows that I have a particular interest in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I have raised that in Committee before, and it is a personal, long-standing interest, which also falls within the Home Office remit. There are shared responsibilities between the Home Office and Foreign and Commonwealth office for our overseas territories. If I recall correctly, I made some brief points in our debate at the beginning of part 5 on British overseas territories, which are also referred to in clause 178. I shall ask specifically about the interlinking between 
 clauses 203 and 178. 
 I hope not to go out of order, but I want to mention a case that was drawn to my attention this lunchtime. It is not an extradition case but, like other cases that Members have referred to, it has overtones that could cause concern for the future development of extradition law. We have sensitivities with cases involving international funds—funds that travel across borders—and the Government wanting to extradite large-scale crooks who are involved in money laundering. 
 My attention was drawn to the huge embarrassment caused to some parts of Her Majesty's Government and the Cayman Islands Government over the recent collapse of the Eurobank case. I shall not take up the Minister's time today, because that would not be in order, but I ask him, when he is considering the Bill's impact on extradition involving overseas territories, to undertake to examine with his officials and those who work with his noble friend Baroness Amos, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, the implications that the Eurobank case may have for extradition law. 
 I read one or two brief press reports over the weekend. I gather that the trial was going to cost many millions to prepare, and that it has now collapsed in disarray because it is thought by the Cayman Islands court that one of the witnesses was working for the security services in this country. That could also happen with money laundering to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. If I had known about that case before we debated clause 178 I might have raised it then, but the collapse happened since that time and before today, so this is the first time that any member of the Committee could have drawn it to the Minister's attention. 
 The Minister and I share a desire to stop money laundering. The issues that we debated at such length on the Proceeds of Crime Bill are raised under this Bill, because international criminals who are involved in money laundering are among those who need to be extradited out of this country to face justice elsewhere or extradited back to face justice here. It is a matter of concern whenever a money laundering case collapses after the expenditure of a huge amount of taxpayers' money—whether it is our money or the Cayman Islands' money does not matter; it is the principle. I hope that the Minister will examine the matter and write to me and other members of the Committee, if they are interested. This serious matter has apparently caused a huge rift between the Cayman Islands Government and the UK Government, of which I am scratching the surface. If I went any further, Mr. O'Hara, you would rule me out of order.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman or any other Member of Parliament has the right to raise such matters in whatever forum he chooses and to write to Ministers to seek an explanation. I do not see what the case has to do with the Bill, let alone the clause, so I am not sure that it would be appropriate for me to write to him in response to his remarks. If he is worried about the issues, I would encourage him either
 to table questions or to write to Ministers seeking an explanation.
 Clause 203 provides for the Bill to be extended by Order in Council to cover the UK's Crown Dependencies; the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Such an order would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure by virtue of clause 205. I trust I am, unusually, at one with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath as regards that. 
 Clause 203 allows for modifications to be made as appropriate to ensure that differences in the islands' legal systems are catered for. The Crown Dependencies do not, for example, have a district judge, or operate the High Court and the House of Lords in the same way as the UK. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the EU and so will not operate the part 1 procedures. Clause 178 applies to overseas territories while clause 203 applies to the Crown Dependencies, but the Bill does not provide for extradition between overseas territories and the islands. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will raise the issues in another way.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister has responded as I hoped. I understand the interlinking between clauses 203 and 178 and that one needs slightly separate provisions. The Minister has set that out helpfully. I will take up his invitation to table questions or to write to him. I thought that it was helpful to raise the matter because it has recently been drawn to my attention and because anything to do with money laundering may have common implications for the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and overseas territories such as the Caymans Islands. It was worth briefly drawing attention to the issue.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 203 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 204 to 208 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4 - Compatability with Crime

'.—The Secretary of State shall certify that the provisions of this Act are compatible with the provisions of the Crime (International Cooperation) Act 2003.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 5—Annual report— 
'The Secretary of State shall publish, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, an annual report on the operation of this legislation.'.

Nick Hawkins: I can be brief. The new clauses are important and if the Minister does not accept them, we are likely to press for Divisions. We will, of course, listen to what the Minister has to say.
 New clause 4 is designed to build into the Bill an essential requirement for compatibility between two pieces of legislation going through the House of Commons at the same time. I referred briefly to the problem earlier, and my discussions with our helpful 
 Clerk about how best to deal with it in the Bill resulted in the new clause. 
 The issue was important enough for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset to refer to it on Second Reading. In response to an exchange between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), the former shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. Friend said: 
''I agree with my hon. and learned Friend''—
 the former shadow Attorney-General. 
''Furthermore, the Government have presented the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill as a tiny amendment that would for the first time allow foreign policemen—whom the Minister tells us he means not to authorise, but who will be authorised under the Extradition Bill—to enter the country to pursue a villain across our borders. In short, we find ourselves surrounded by a set of minor incursions that are centripetal in their intent. There is a move towards the homogenisation of systems of justice in the EU''.
 There was then an interruption, as Hansard politely describes it, by the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), expostulating from the Treasury Bench. My right hon. Friend responded: 
''The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety suggests that I do not believe what I am saying. I do not think that I have ever in my life said anything that I believe more strongly. If he is sufficiently naive as not to believe it—if he is a fellow traveller rather than a willing enthusiast—he will be sorely disillusioned as the measure progresses. ''—[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 58–9.]
 As ever, my right hon. Friend puts the matter far more eloquently than I could. 
 The Government cannot be allowed to get away with having two Bills proceeding through Parliament—one starting in another place, the other in the House of Commons—both of which chip away at our historic freedoms. One allows foreign policemen to hot pursuit in this country for hours. The other says that foreign policemen cannot act without the authorisation of UK courts, but allows arrest warrants issued by a foreign judicial authority to be executed here by British policemen. Both measures, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, are chipping away at our policing and judicial system. We on the Conservative Benches passionately object to that. 
 The Minister may say that the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill allows a hot pursuit only for a few hours. He has said that the Bill does not involve a massive extension of foreign judicial power to the United Kingdom, but if we allow all this chipping away, we will end up losing all our freedoms. We will end up as a tiny administrative region of the European Union. 
 Conservative Members think that many Government Members want this country to be just a minor region in the EU. The current Secretary of State for Wales was pretty honest and open about it when he was Minister for Europe. I have always thought that as the right hon. Gentleman, who represents Neath, is not British but South African—and should not 
 therefore play any part in our Government—he does not understand how British people feel about their historic freedoms. How could he? He did not grow up in Britain. 
 The current Minister for Europe comes from the former eastern Europe; he did not grow up in Britain either. We refer to him as ''the hon. Member for Geneva, Central'', because he spent most of his career working for the World Bank in Switzerland. I am worried about the Government. The past two Ministers for Europe have not been British and do not understand our historic freedoms. If we allow the two pieces of legislation to which I have referred to trundle away through our legislative procedures—

Boris Johnson: I hesitate to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I wonder whether he is being a little too alarmist about the effect of foreign policemen coming to these shores. I watched a programme with my children the other night in which Inspector Clouseau was allowed to come here with no judicial authority whatever to investigate important crimes with the co-operation of the Government, so that seems to have been well tested—[Interruption.]

Nick Hawkins: As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster says from a sedentary position, that sounds like a dangerous precedent. The last thing that we want is for Inspector Clouseau to come out of the realms of fiction and into fact.
 Despite this levity, I am making a serious point, which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset made on Second Reading. My noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns proposed a provision in Committee in another place on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill that would require this Bill to be compatible with that one. We do not want two pieces of legislation going their separate ways without referring to each other, so that we make it clear to those who follow our proceedings and the public that we are alive to what the Government are really up to. We think that that has serious implications and we want new clause 4 in the Bill. 
 I can deal with new clause 5 much more briefly. We are talking about big changes in extradition law; even the Minister accepted that. The framework decision introduces 32 new categories and corpus juris, as we have said. The part 1 provisions are very significant. Concerns have been expressed by a range of organisations, from Liberty and Justice, which are traditionally regarded as on the left of politics, through the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, who are in the centre, one way or another, to the Freedom Association and the Democracy Movement, which are on the right of politics. The fact that all those organisations and parties express concerns shows that the changes that the Bill makes to extradition law should be kept under review by Parliament. 
 The framework decision makes such major changes, especially in respect of part 1 countries—as I think the Minister accepts when he is being frank—that there should be a report to Parliament by the Secretary of State on how all that is working. If the Minister chooses to adopt that proposal, he could say that it is part of the Government's modernising agenda. I am normally the bitterest opponent of anything called modernisation; I am a traditionalist. I believe that when the Conservative party returns to its rightful place in government, we should have a Traditionalisation Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), whose mandate is to reverse each and every one of the so-called modernisations that this Government have introduced. 
 Despite that, I would like to think that the Government would give a fair wind to the idea of keeping the legislation under review. That is a serious point; I do not say any more than that.

Bob Ainsworth: We should have a public inquiry into the problem of all these foreigners who are infiltrating our political system. Apparently they have been doing so for some time, and it is not just the Labour party that is responsible.—[Interruption.] I understand that Bonar Law was a Canadian, yet the Conservative party allowed him to climb to the very heights. God knows what damage he did to the British parliamentary system as a foreigner with his hands on the levers of power, courtesy of the Conservative party. So that sort of thing has been going on for some time, and is very dangerous indeed.
 Whatever we do, we are scolded by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. Both Bills are in Parliament at the same time. We have obligations that we have entered into that we must try to enact in a reasonable period of time. However, the Government wanted to ensure that both Bills went into Parliament at the same time so that nothing would be hidden. 
 If we had delayed the Extradition Bill until we had dealt with the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath would have stood up and said that we were doing it in that way because there was another train coming along the track that would be far worse, and would have serious ramifications. If we had done it the other way round, he would have suggested that the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill would contain some appalling measures of which he had not yet had sight. 
 Both Bills are published, both are in Parliament and both can be scrutinised at the same time. There is nothing hidden, as the hon. Gentleman tried to imply. I reiterate once again the cast-iron, copper-bottomed commitment that we have repeatedly tried to give.

Nick Hawkins: It cannot be cast iron and copper bottomed. That is a mixture of metals.

Bob Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman can expostulate on the centripetality of the issues, I can do what I like.
 The Government have no plans to designate anyone other than a British law enforcement officer to execute warrants under the Bill. Arrests will be carried out 
 only by British police officers, by British law enforcement officers such as members of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, or by members of the services' police forces. My hon. Friends and I have made that clear repeatedly. 
 Unlike the corresponding powers enacted by the Conservative Government, we are giving Parliament the fullest possible say in the matter. No one other than a constable will be able to execute a European arrest warrant unless there has been a positive vote in both Houses of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has no grounds for his suspicions. 
 Under clause 83 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended with a new clause 76A. That new clause states: 
''This section applies where—
(a) a foreign police or customs officer is carrying out relevant surveillance outside the UK which is lawful under the law of the country or territory in which it is being carried out;
(b) circumstances arise by virtue of which the surveillance can for the time being be carried out only in the United Kingdom; and
(c) it is not reasonably practicable in those circumstances to request a person in the United Kingdom to apply for an authorisation under Part 2, or the corresponding Scottish legislation, for the carrying out of surveillance.''
 That is a clear statement, which concerns surveillance in very limited circumstances, and does not cover stop and search, seizure or arrest. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have tried repeatedly to raise a scare that this is the thin end of a wedge that will give powers to foreign police officers to operate within our country. All such powers, where they are sensible and operate at the margin, will be scrutinised by Parliament. If Parliament comes to the conclusion, in the case of the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, that it is unreasonable to allow foreign surveillance to continue for a short period of time to affect a changeover, Parliament can strike that down. If Parliament chose to do that it would not have the support of the police, as they think these powers are eminently sensible and necessary. They enable them to pursue criminals who escape across jurisdictions and to co-operate with our European partners. They are limited powers. The Bill is before Parliament and available for scrutiny. Nothing has been hidden. The hon. Gentleman should not have suggested that it had.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has restricted his remarks almost entirely to new clause 4. We gained an interesting insight into the workings of a Conservative Front-Bench Member's mind as to what constituted the thin end of the wedge. Although it was a fascinating exposition, some substantive points were made on new clause 5 which I thought had some merit. I should be grateful if the Minister could address them.

Nick Hawkins: I was waiting to see whether the Minister would respond to the hon. Gentleman. I was going to say that he not responded to me either.

Bob Ainsworth: I got a bit carried away in my enthusiasm to knock down the hon. Gentleman's outrageous allegation.
 New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the Bill. Given that we do not believe that the Secretary of State should perform the roles assigned to him by some of the amendments, it will not surprise the Committee to know that I do not share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for his new clause. Home Office Ministers are and will remain accountable to Parliament. They are obliged to answer parliamentary questions on the operation of our extradition legislation and on every other part of their responsibilities. 
 It is not necessary to go further and to add a requirement to give an annual report to Parliament on the operation of extradition procedures. There is no need for a formal annual report. Annual reports on the operation of legislation are not a common feature. There is no such requirement in relation to our existing extradition arrangements. Why should the Bill warrant such treatment? The Opposition would probably reply that it is a radical departure.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister provides my response. Is it not therefore appropriate, as we have an exceptional measure in the Bill, to have an exceptional measure to monitor it and to report back to Parliament?

Bob Ainsworth: It is a clear change from what has gone before. Most Acts of Parliament are. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath repeatedly complains—occasionally a Liberal Democrat will join in—that this is draconian legislation, but that does not prove that it is. What they are calling for is unusual. The Bill will be subject to the same ongoing scrutiny as other legislation. Home Office Ministers will be accountable to Parliament in the usual way. I see no justification for an annual report.

Nick Hawkins: I am not satisfied with that. I am glad that my passionate speech on new clause 4 got the Minister so carried away that he forgot about new clause 5. They are both equally important. When the Minister says that this matter will get the same level of scrutiny as normally occurs, we all know that in practice that means none at all. Once something is on the statute book, the temptation is for Ministers to forget all about it and move on to the next thing. That is the nature of Government: Ministers and officials always have more problems to deal with and new Bills to examine.

Alistair Carmichael: That is what we are afraid of.

Nick Hawkins: Indeed. Problems may arise with the Bill's implementation. For example, the police may find that things are going wrong or my hon. Friends and I may see the dangers that we mentioned arising. We may go down the slippery slope that we warned against or problems may arise from the interaction between this legislation and an international police co-operation Bill. That could form the thin end of a large wedge. If that happens, Parliament will not have a chance to scrutinise the operation of the Bill, other than when Ministers tell us that we can have a half-
 hour Adjournment debate on it, which often happens. I regularly go to business questions, and when concerns are raised about the operation of legislation, the Leader of the House frequently says that the Member can raise it on the Adjournment. If we agreed to new clause 5, there would be proper scrutiny. The Bill is a major departure, so we should have exceptional measures to deal with it, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. I will press the Committee to a Division.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 5Annual report

New clause 5 - Annual report

'The Secretary of State shall publish, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, an annual report on the operation of this legislation.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.] 
Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 7Political reasons

New clause 7 - Political reasons

'(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State believes that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to a person.
(2) The first condition is that the person's extradition is sought or will be sought under Part 1 or Part 2 in respect of an offence.
(3) The second condition is that the extradition request has been made for political reasons.
(4) The Secretary of State may certify that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to the person.
(5) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may—
(a) direct that a Part 1 warrant issued in respect of the person and in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with, or
(b) direct that a request for the person's extradition in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with.
(6) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may order the person's discharge (instead of or in addition to giving a direction under subsection (5)).
(7) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(a) in respect of a warrant—
(a) if the designated authority has not issued a certificate under section 2 in respect of the warrant it must not do so;
(b) if the person is arrested under the warrant or under section 5 there is no requirement for him to be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;
(c) if the person is brought before the appropriate judge under section 4 or 6 the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 7 and 8;
(d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 10 to 25;
(e) if the person has consented to his extradition, the judge is no longer required to order his extradition;
(f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;
(g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.
(8) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(b) in respect of a request—
(a) if he has not issued a certificate under section 69 in respect of the request he is no longer required to do so;
(b) if the person is arrested under a warrant issued under section 70 or under a provisional warrant there is no requirement for him to appear or be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;
(c) if the person appears or is brought before the appropriate judge the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 71, 73, 74 and 75;
(d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 77 to 88;
(e) if the person has given his consent to his extradition to the appropriate judge, the judge is no longer required to send the case to the Secretary of State for his decision whether the person is to be extradited;
(f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;
(g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.
(9) These must be made under the hand of the Secretary of State—
(a) a certificate under subsection (4)
(b) a direction under subsection (5);
(c) an order under subsection (6).
(10) The preceding provisions of this section apply to Scotland with these modifications—
(a) in subsection (8)(a) for ''he has'' substitute ''the Scottish Ministers have'' and for ''he is'' substitute ''they are'';
(b) in subsection (8)(e) for ''Secretary of State for his'' substitute ''Scottish Ministers for their''.
(11) In subsection (2) the reference to an enactment includes an enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question accordingly negatived. New clause 8Trivial offences

New clause 8 - Trivial offences

'(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State believes that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to a person.
(2) The first condition is that the person's extradition is sought or will be sought under Part 1 or Part 2 in respect of an offence.
(3) The second condition is that the offence for which extradition is sought is trivial.
(4) The Secretary of State may certify that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are satisfied in relation to the person.
(5) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may—
(a) direct that a Part 1 warrant issued in respect of the person and in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with, or
(b) direct that a request for the person's extradition in respect of the offence is not to be proceeded with.
(6) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (4) he may order the person's discharge (instead of or in addition to giving a direction under subsection (5)).
(7) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(a) in respect of a warrant—
(a) if the designated authority has not issued a certificate under section 2 in respect of the warrant it must not do so;
(b) if the person is arrested under the warrant or under section 5 there is no requirement for him to be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;
(c) if the person is brought before the appropriate judge under section 4 or 6 the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 7 and 8;
(d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 10 to 25;
(e) if the person has consented to his extradition, the judge is no longer required to order his extradition;
(f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;
(g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.
(8) These rules apply if the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (5)(b) in respect of a request—
(a) if he has not issued a certificate under section 69 in respect of the request he is no longer required to do so;
(b) if the person is arrested under a warrant issued under section 70 or under a provisional warrant there is no requirement for him to appear or be brought before the appropriate judge and he must be discharged;
(c) if the person appears or is brought before the appropriate judge the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 71, 73, 74 and 75;
(d) if the extradition hearing has begun the judge is no longer required to proceed or continue proceeding under sections 77 to 88;
(e) if the person has given his consent to his extradition to the appropriate judge, the judge is no longer required to send the case to the Secretary of State for his decision whether the person is to be extradited;
(f) if an appeal to the High Court or House of Lords has been brought, the court is no longer required to hear or continue hearing the appeal;
(g) if the person's extradition has been ordered there is no requirement for him to be extradited.
(9) These must be made under the hand of the Secretary of State—
(a) a certificate under subsection (4)
(b) a direction under subsection (5);
(c) an order under subsection (6).
(10) The preceding provisions of this section apply to Scotland with these modifications—
(a) in subsection (8)(a) for ''he has'' substitute ''the Scottish Ministers have'' and for ''he is'' substitute ''they are'';
(b) in subsection (8)(e) for ''Secretary of State for his'' substitute ''Scottish Ministers for their''.
(11) In subsection (2) the reference to an enactment includes an enactment comprised in or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.
ORDER OF THE HOUSE [9th DECEMBER 2002]{**qc**}
That the following provisions shall apply to the Extradition Bill—
Committal{**qc**}
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
Proceedings in Standing Committee{**qc**}
(2) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 21st January 2003.
(3) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading{**qc**}
(4) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
(6) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings{**qc**}
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Hawkins.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 8.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Bob Ainsworth: It remains for us to say a few words at the end of our consideration of the Bill, and to thank you, Mr. O'Hara, and your colleague and co-Chairman, Miss Begg, for the way in which you have conducted the proceedings. I also thank the Clerk and the Staff of the House, who assist us in dealing with the legislation, and Hansard for hanging on to every word and trying to make sense of what we say. I want to thank the Home Office staff for the support that they have given me and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), and all members of the Committee on both sides for the way in which they have dealt with matters.
 One of the highlights of the Committee was that the fact there was time for only one outburst from the hon. Member for Henley. It is a shame that he did not return earlier from his break in India, as we might have had more demonstrations of his intellect imposed on us, as is his usual style. 
 We discovered a little about the past behaviour of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon with his brawling abroad with the Royal Navy, or was he merely condoning the brawls with the Royal Navy during the Trafalgar cup many years ago? 
 The ultimate highlight was the disclosure of the secret discussions that take place between my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) and certain Members on the Opposition Front Bench, the taxis travelling across London and all the serious ramifications that that has for all hon. Members. 
 I have enjoyed the proceedings and, on balance, am glad that they were shorter than the proceedings of the Committee that considered the Proceeds of Crime Bill. That Committee certainly was a one-off. We have attempted to expose all the issues, and I hope that we will be able to report the Bill to the House for further consideration.

Nick Hawkins: May I extend the Opposition's thanks to you, Mr. O'Hara, and to the Clerks, the Staff of the House and all members of the Committee. This has been one of the most good-humoured Committees on which I have ever had the pleasure to serve. It has been enormously helped by the relaxed approach adopted by you and your co-Chairman, Miss Begg. My hon. Friends and I have been grateful for the latitude that you showed us in this afternoon's sitting, which has been especially good-humoured—we may all be a little demob happy. That latitude is especially helpful when dealing with arcane and technical matters on the law of extradition, and with serious issues that are difficult to deal with in brief interventions. We benefit greatly from those senior Members who are prepared to sit on the Chairmen's Panel and chair our proceedings.
 I share the Minister's view that this was, to some extent, Proceeds of Crime Bill mark 2. No doubt it would have been longer and we would have needed 
 more Committee sittings under the programme motion if the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) had served with us on the Committee. The battles between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley have passed into parliamentary legend, and will doubtless feature in many of our memoirs in years to come. 
 The Whips—the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster—also managed to work in a good-humoured way. Although the Minister tried hard to drive a wedge between the Liberal Democrats, he did not succeed. I had hoped to tempt the hon. Members for Doncaster, North and for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) to support us on certain Divisions, and there were a couple of times when the Government might have been in serious trouble. Some votes were only seven to six in the Government's favour. The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary was the missing Member on one Division, and the Division had to be delayed to enable him to rush back in. Otherwise, it would have been six all, and we might have had an Opposition victory.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman should not delude himself about my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North and me.

Nick Hawkins: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was with us when his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North strongly supported our concerns and raised serious issues with the Minister. It is recorded in Hansard that he voted with the Government only because of the Minister's reassurances. We came quite close on occasions, and the other place will examine the voting figures carefully.
 I sincerely thank members of the Committee and also the outside organisations that provided the Opposition with briefing material to help us at least try to match the army of civil servants that backs the Government.

John Burnett: I want to join the Minister and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in thanking you, Mr. O'Hara, and Miss Begg for your relaxed and tolerant chairmanship, which was much appreciated. The Committee has been free of rancour, and we have had some well-humoured sittings. It has been reasonably enjoyable.
 We are immensely grateful to the Clerks, who help us enormously. Briefings from outside are also enormously helpful. Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members do not have a thousand civil servants—armies to prime, rehearse and assist us—so we have to work hard to call the Government to account. 
 As well as the Clerks, I want to thank those who record our proceedings and the Attendants, several of whom I had the privilege of serving with in Her Majesty's Royal Marines. They may have had an inkling of what I meant when I mentioned the Trafalgar cup in 1966. It remains to thank the police and members of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland. From 
 the far south-west to the far north, we have launched a combined operation and fought a valiant fight. To the Minister, I say that more is to come, not only here, but in another place.

Edward O'Hara: It is my turn to express my appreciation. The Attendants have served and protected us extremely well, and I thank the Hansard reporters who always ensure that the occasional solecism from the Chair, which may not be noticed by the Committee, turns out correctly in the Official Report. I made one not long ago and the Hansard writer would have noticed it and ensured that it came out right. The Clerks are an unceasing source of efficient support and guidance.
 No one has mentioned those on my right, who are traditionally seen but not heard. I have been impressed with the discreet way in which advice has been extradited to the Committee. Finally, members of the Committee—

John Burnett: In fairness—I am sure that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will confirm it—the Minister did convey his thanks to his colleagues.

Edward O'Hara: I was coming on to members of the Committee. I congratulate the Minister on conducting proceedings with great panache, and the same applies to the chief spokesmen for the Opposition parties. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was absolutely right when he said that our proceedings have been unfailingly courteous, which is important when such serious matters are being debated. When not dripping with courtesy, our proceedings were at least good-humoured, which made my job much easier.
 At the end of our proceedings, I do not know whether we have a cast-iron, copper-bottomed commitment, which sounds like a masterpiece of the tinker's craft, but it is time to conclude. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
 Committee rose at fourteen minutes past Four o'clock.